(please scroll down for update)
So, what happens when a free representative republic like America attempts to sit down and discuss "human rights" with a top-down authoritarian, communist regime like that which exists in China?
If you are a member of the Obama administration, you start making ridiculous implied moral equivalencies between Arizona'a illegal immigration law and China's one child/forced abortion policy.
Read more at Left Coast Rebel, here.
P.S. We imagine Arizonans aren't taking kindly to the ugly red-headed step-child treatment they are getting from officials of their own country. In fact, we don't ever recall anyone ever getting called out in this manner. This has been an administration of firsts, however.
(UPDATE #1): KT was kind enough to link to this post and his intro got us to pondering even more.
Just what in the hell were we thinking in the first place engaging in human rights "dialog" with the Chi-comms? In order to dialog with someone, do you not need some commanality? Do you not need some sort of mutually-agreed upon baseline from which you can begin discussion? Where in god's name does that baseline exist between us and the Chi-comms. It doesn't. That's fact.
But since we did decide to enter into dialog we're forced to simultaneously pander in the most shameless manner to the Chi-comms while hanging the citizens of a state of our Union out to dry.
It's bad enough that the miserable hack that runs the Justice Department and who has criticized the law admitted that he hadn't even read the law (ditto: Napolitano), it has now been revealed that the Justice Department has not even seen fit to rescind a Bush-era memo that acknowleges the states' powers to enforce federal law.
In the legal battle over Arizona's new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.
The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have "inherent power" to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. It was issued by Jay S. Bybee, who also helped write controversial memos from the same era that sanctioned harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects.
The author of the Arizona law -- which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials -- has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.
The Justice Department is currently working feverishly to bring suit against a law that is current Justice Department policy. The geniuses at Team-O never saw fit to rummage through the files of the despised Bush administration to see if there might be some inconvenient directives or memos that might gum up their politicization of the illegal immigration debate. Unbelievable.
So, if you are scoring at home, we have:
1. Shameless pandering to historic human rights abusers who in terms of both quality and quantity in human rights abuses probably lead the planet.
2. Throwing the citizens of Arizona under the bus.
3. The nation's top cop and director of Homeland Security freely admit they haven't read the law which they apparently oppose.
4. Justice Department is currently charting a course which directly countermands their own policy.
You know what all this represents? Amateur hour. Amateur hour, plain and simple.
Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to open mic night at the Copa Americana. Please give it up for Team Obama - they'll be here for, eh, 2-1/2 more years.